D J Spiegelhalter1. 1. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK. david.spiegelhalter@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A problem can arise when a performance indicator shows substantially more variability than would be expected by chance alone, since ignoring such "over-dispersion" could lead to a large number of institutions being inappropriately classified as "abnormal". A number of options for handling this phenomenon are investigated, ranging from improved risk stratification to fitting a statistical model that robustly estimates the degree of over-dispersion. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of publicly available data on survival following coronary artery bypass grafts, emergency readmission rates, and teenage pregnancies. SETTING: NHS trusts in England. RESULTS: Funnel plots clearly show the influence of the method chosen for dealing with over-dispersion on the "banding" a trust receives. Both multiplicative and additive approaches are feasible and give intuitively reasonable results, but the additive random effects formulation appears to have a stronger conceptual foundation. CONCLUSION: A random effects model may offer a reasonable solution. This method has now been adopted by the UK Healthcare Commission in their derivation of star ratings.
OBJECTIVES: A problem can arise when a performance indicator shows substantially more variability than would be expected by chance alone, since ignoring such "over-dispersion" could lead to a large number of institutions being inappropriately classified as "abnormal". A number of options for handling this phenomenon are investigated, ranging from improved risk stratification to fitting a statistical model that robustly estimates the degree of over-dispersion. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of publicly available data on survival following coronary artery bypass grafts, emergency readmission rates, and teenage pregnancies. SETTING: NHS trusts in England. RESULTS: Funnel plots clearly show the influence of the method chosen for dealing with over-dispersion on the "banding" a trust receives. Both multiplicative and additive approaches are feasible and give intuitively reasonable results, but the additive random effects formulation appears to have a stronger conceptual foundation. CONCLUSION: A random effects model may offer a reasonable solution. This method has now been adopted by the UK Healthcare Commission in their derivation of star ratings.
Authors: J F Stark; S Gallivan; K Davis; J R Hamilton; J L Monro; J C Pollock; K G Watterson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Johannes Pollmanns; Patrick S Romano; Maria Weyermann; Max Geraedts; Saskia E Drösler Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Nadia R Llanwarne; Gary A Abel; Marc N Elliott; Charlotte A M Paddison; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John L Campbell; Martin Roland Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166